This is an abridged version of the earlier article The latest Psychosocial Compliance challenge? Confusing Legislative Compliance & Psychosocial Risk surveys
When I used to work as a Health & Safety Auditor professionally, the two biggest causes for non-compliances were:
Literal legal wording, and therefore Compliance requirements, both across NZ, UK and Federal Australian law, is NOT met by the current common Psychosocial Risk Management of surveying to measure work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, ie these surveys are is NOT LEGAL COMPLIANCE. NEITHER DO THESE SURVEYS ACTUALLY MANAGE RISKS.
Psychosocial of surveying to measure work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, only are a measure of harm that has happened, literally only an evaluation. Definitely NOT psychosocial RISK MANAGEMENT. DEFINITELY NOT COMPLIANCE.
Risk Elimination (or Harm Prevention) of causes of work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, is what legally must be done, first.
Australian Work Health and Safety Act 2011: Management of risks
(a) to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable
New Zealand Health and Safety at Work Act 2015: Management of risks
(a) to eliminate risks to health and safety, so far as is reasonably practicable
Psychosocial Risk Management of surveying to measure work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, ie these surveys are is NOT LEGAL COMPLIANCE, it is merely a Code of Practice ie a GUIDE to set up frameworks towards COMPLIANCE ie 'Eliminate Risks'. Measuring work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, absolutely does not 'Eliminate Risks'. E.g. bullying will 100% NOT BE PREVENTED with policies, reporting, investigating, training, mediation, more surveys.
The first and foremost legal requirement is Psychosocial Elimination, wording in the Act (across Au, NZ, UK and more). All other mitigation, COP, policy requirements are carried out after this ie
Codes of Practice
before any Standards eg ISO 45003 and operational docs eg in-house bullying policy become relevant
If there was an external investigation into a workplace psychosocial event, it would be the primary legislation requirements for Risk Elimination/Harm Prevention that any non-compliance would be raised against.
Psychosocial surveys to measure work demand, job control, role clarity, support, reward/recognition, bullying etc, are themselves NOT meeting legal compliance. You're also not preventing harm or fixing things in a preventive manner which is what is required to eliminate risk. All these psychosocial risks have already happened by the time you send out these surveys to ask how bad it is. And used about 80% more time, personnel, money and other resources logging, investigating, fixing this harm compared to if this harm was prevented in the first place. And the root cause that results in each of these psychosocial risks is not addressed or fixed. So all you end up doing is re-measuring the same psychosocial risks every time you do a survey in an endless reactive, time and revenue hungry cycle.
From a compliance perspective, if you aren't harm preventing, all your COP workplace aggression, bullying, sexual harassment etc are inherently going to be increased not properly mitigated. From an operational perspective, people are going to be at increased risk of making mistakes and increasing incidents, from an organisational point, high turnover, burnout, low productivity, revenue losses. All avoidable. With preventive management. Which NOT will come from psychosocial risk surveys.
Key differences:
I have seen so many people just pick up an item, or few, from 'lists' of controls and throw them in after after doing a psychosocial risk survey, thinking they are putting 'controls' in place. Often with their interpretation of legal requirements to 'monitor' and 'review' controls translated as 'monitor which random item we are calling controls are closed vs pending vs outstanding and 'review with another survey'. Or worse, after doing this, go 'that's us controls our risks for a year, we'll have a look at the 'controls' in year'!
This is the equivalent of you going to see your GP and they hand you a bag of pills and say 'have a go at these and see if it cures you................'Controls' are specific in requirements to manage risks and hazards.
Just because you have one or several in place for identified risk out, DOES NOT mean they are the right control, or even controls at all for that particular risk in that specific environment. And correct controls in place this month may no longer be appropriate controls in 3 months as psychosocial risks are invisible, dynamic and cumulative and the causes may change in 3mths to interact differently where you will need new controls. The ONLY way to know this is with proficiency in RISK MANAGEMENT, ie how to access controls are right and working and when they need to be re-assessed, and qualified understanding of psychosocial dynamics.
Psychosocial Risks Compliance is by far the most misunderstood workplace concept at present. The conversation has come a long way in the last 2 years. But the problem with finding your way as you go is you don't if the way you're going is on the right path. So you in good faith organisations look to 'consultants' looking for proficiency based guidance. It may also surprise you to know that most apps, softwares, trainers and consultants along this way are equally trying to find their way in this field. And are not proficiency based.
The literal definition of Consultant is "Expert advisor: Provides specialised knowledge and expertise to organisations or individuals."
If you are an organisational psychologist, there is no proficiency to accommodate "specialised knowledge and expertise" for H&S RISK MANAGEMENT or H&S COMPLIANCE, by definition.
And it's hard to know which consultants & softwares are proficiency based and which are more of the same generic nonsense. In the age of internet and mass marketing most will rely on the first google hit, marketing or event speakers. But you can buy your way to the top of those platforms, and have zero subject matter expertise. So let's break it down to the obvious low hanging fruit of recognising reputable from not.
It's also worth highlighting here that physical risks tools like risk matrix, risk registers, risk heat maps, swim lanes, ICAM etc are all completely ineffective tools to try to apply to psychosocial risks. They simply do not work because these latter risks are a completely different animal in dynamics to physical risks where these are appropriate.
Looking at you Flourish Dx, who have been claiming mine and EnableOrg's content as their own for years. Yet still consistently implementing incorrect requirements for both psychosocial RISK MANAGEMENT, and WHS COMPLIANCE. As Jason's claims of proficiency and 'propriety' formula appear to change with each of my compliance posts. Though 'risk management' or 'compliance' is specific requirements that you either carry out as required, or not, and can not possibly be 'propriety formula', unless it is non compliant. No doubt talk about being experts in Harm Prevention or Risk Elimination will pop up as their newest propriety claim after posting this post..................
Founded by a certification WHS Lead Auditor, EnableOrg® was established by a real need for credible information and practice. Whilst carry out audits, most non-compliances were due to either 'google' solutions implemented or external consultants and apps that had no subject matter expertise behind them. Disheartened at always having to tell people the consultant or software they had invested in wasn't effective or doing what it portrayed, being at the start of the implementation journey was solution born.
With workplaces wanting to do the right thing, but with endless claims 'out there', and providers often churning out the same generic piece-meal misunderstood psychosocial, wellbeing, mental health and culture pitfalls, and always being at the end of implementation, after copious money was spent, time was consumed and risks had been unnecessarily increased, that these ineffective solutions were picked up at the end of an audit, our founder decide being at the start of the process and educating along the process was a far more desirable avenue to offer.
So built with subject-matter experts for legislative WHS Risk Management compliance requirements, Organisational Psychology for psychosocial hazard & risk identification, and the inventors of ISO input, EnableOrg® was founded. No generic piece-meal misinformed ineffectiveness. Just expertise consulting, training, software, for a whole organisation, whole person compliance & healthy culture management & Leadership Development solution.
